ISLAMABAD The Supreme Court Thursday observed that under the Article 267-A of the Constitution, a difficulty such as formulation of Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges in Balochistan High Court could be resolved through joint sitting of the Parliament. In its written order, the court said that four judges of the Balochistan High Court were seeking their confirmation before September 5, as their additional tenure would expire on the 5th of September. While mentioning the difficulty in the formulation of proposed Judicial Commission because there was no judge available in Balochistan for the said commission, the court asked Attorney General of Pakistan Maulvi Anwarl-ul-Haq and the counsel for the Punjab Government, Shahid Hamid, to inform the 17-member larger bench hearing the 18th Amendment case about the Federations stance on the issue till 23rd August. Attorney General told the bench that the Government was keenly observing that issue, however he added, no decision could be made yet in that regard. He asked the court to make decision on the issue. Lawyers who had challenged the Amendment and those lawyers who are still defending it completed their arguments. Advocate Generals of all the four provinces also appeared before the bench on the court notices. Attorney General is scheduled to address the court next week with regard to unanswered questions and it is being expected that, after him, Senator Raza Rabbani would appear before the court to apprise the bench of the parliamentary wisdom behind 18the Amendment. Advocate Generals of Balochistan and KP adopted the arguments of Federations lawyer. While an amazing situation arose in the courtroom no. 1 when Advocate General of Punjab Khawaja Haris argued against the article 175-A, 63-A and 17 (4) of the constitution whereas Shahid Hamid, the counsel for the Punjab Government, had argued before the bench in defence of the 18th Amendment. Shahid said that through new system of judges appointment, delaying tactics would be eliminated, adding that Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of judges could be formulated within one day. Despite the passage of three months, appointment of NAB chairman could not be made and similarly the formulation of Election Commission was pending for last four months then how it was possible to form PC within one day, Justice Ramday quipped him. Chief Justice also observed that the Attorney General had pledged one month ago that within few days the appointment of NAB chairman would be made but it could not be made possible so far. Justice Jawwad Khawaja observed that difficulties would arise in 14 parties representative assembly. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmad asked whether the members of PC would perform their duties under the command of their respective parties. Justice Shakirullah Jan observed that if PC would discuss the conduct of a judge in Parliament then it would be violation of article 68 of the constitution in which it is written that judges conduct could not be brought under discussion in Parliament. Shahid Hamid said, Striking down any part of the 18th Amendment was equal to reduce the parliamentary powers. He suggested the bench that rather than striking down part of the Amendment, the court should refer it to Parliament for review. He said the Government believed in independence of judiciary. While taking back his proposed principles, he said the court could introduce better principles for Judicial Commission. Chief Justice asked Shahid Hamid, Are you conceding that there are some parts of the 18th Amendment which had required due attention during the amendment process to avoid todays enactment difficulties. Hamid said that the court could harmonise such parts rather than striking them down. He said under 175-A, President and PMs role had almost ended in the judges appointment process and they could issue notification only, adding that it would not affect the parliamentary system, as PMs role was assigned to parliamentary committee.